If anyone has been listening to the news then we all know that President elect Bush and his camp are thinking about appointees. This morning on NPR I caught the tail end of a conversation concerning the forms, questionares and afadavits one must fill out in order to be selected. Naturally there will be quite a few appointments especially those in policy making jobs and national security that will be subject to FBI and secret service scrutiny. That is understandable.
My thought is…what’s up with some of these forms. There was a question on this thing that asked basically…
Have you ever done anything that would embarass yourself, your family or your president?
What’s up with that? Who hasn’t ever done something embarassing. Must you reach back into your past so far or contemplate your private life in such a way that any small something might hold you back from serving your country?
I didn’t catch the name of the man who was being interviewed but he was head of some committee and they had written a manual entitled “How to Survive a Presidental Appointment”. They talked about how Congress uses these appoinments to get back at each other and people they don’t like or trust. He talked about how it should come as no suprise that perhaps the best and brightest would not even want to bother with serving in this capacity. The process needs to be streamlined and should not be so invasive. I agree. He said under these conditions an appointee may decide not to apply or decline based on the fact that someone saw them beat their dog once.
Oh, absolutely - between political parties bickering over the balance of power and the press hungry for next week’s headline, I pity anyone either running for office or up for an appointment. I have not yet seen “The Contender,” but critics seemed to think it was right on the money. And admitting one’s mistakes openly seems to get mixed results.
Let’s face it - Washington, the press and the public are fickle, fickle creatures.
I know Matt I was a little suprised too. Lots of folks. Someone on NPR was talking about how could some civil engineer or environmental scientist in somewhere say, Washington state just submit an application. The guy said of course. But it would also help if they could get some backing from someone a little closer to capital hill. The deal was though that all of these people have to submit to a rather intrusive screening process. Which I find damned near criminal. But then I think our government officals practice the most embarassing kind of “National Enquirer” politics. It’s a wonder after 8 years of dirt digging by these guys if anyone will want those 6000 jobs. I can see how some people would decline to put themselves through that for a job that might not last more than 4 years.
I’ve also been hearing that Bush just might find it a littler harder than expected to practice bipartisanship by the way of appointing Democrats to some of these positions. After 8 years of the Republicans snapping at the heals of everyone Clinton tried to hire they might just be a little hesitant to put themselves out there for scrutiny. Of course that isn’t the only reason Bush might have trouble getting Dems to work for him.
Anyway, I just thought it was ridiculous to put people through such nonsense. It just displays how petty and un-statesmanlike the whole process has become.
I’ve been through multiple background checks, both for the military, and in the federal civil service, and the main thing they’re concerned about (at least in the opinion of the HR rep who was working on my paperwork) is information that can be used to blackmail. The embarrassment factor isn’t in public buffoonery, it’s in those dark, shameful secrets that some people have. They were interested in alcohol and drug problems, possible sexual issues (like soliciting prostitutes; officially, the government no longer cares if you’re gay), gambling and the like.
The questionnaires I had to fill out were rather lengthy and detailed. I had to list every address I had lived at for the past five years. I had to list every job I’d held. I had to give references from people I’d known for at least five years. There could be no blank answers. And they would send out FBI agents or questionnaires, as appropriate, to verify this information.
This was for a GS-4 position as a medical clerk. I can only imagine what the higher-level people have to go through.
It’s my understanding that this isn’t the boogeyman people make it out to be, and surprisingly it’s one of those things that actually seems to work half-decently.
As a whole the Senate tends to give the President elect the benefit of the doubt in his initial appointments, and only object at truly onerous choices.
This is traditionally so, because 4 or 8 years from now, objecting senators may very well have a President from their party trying to get through this process, and payback is always a bitch.